Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the show -cause notice dated March 10, 2014, annexure P -1 whereby respondent No. 2 has called upon the petitioner to show cause to respondent No. 3 as to why period of six months prescribed under section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, "the Act") be not further extended for six months. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of imported automobile parts. It was directly importing automobile parts and selling in the domestic market. On September 20, 2013, officers of respondent No. 2 searched the various premises of the petitioner. During the search, the respondent seized complete record of the petitioner as well as goods lying in the godown. The respondent also seized eight containers lying at the port. The petitioner being an importer, as and when intended to seek clearance of goods for home consumption has to file bill of entry as contemplated under section 46 of the Act. As per prescribed procedure under the Act, before permitting clearance of goods for home consumption, goods are physically examined, samples are drawn and assessment order is passed under section 17 read with section 47 of the Act. During the search, it was alleged that the petitioner mis -declared the value of the imported goods at the time of filing the bill of entry and short -paid duty in comparison to their actual liability. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 970 of 2014 for release of goods lying in godown. On September 21, 2013, the respondent authority recorded statement of Shri Tarun Monga, partner of the petitioner. The petitioner had no option except to state that there was some difference/undervaluation in the documents shown to him. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs because the respondent agreed to release the goods only on deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs. According to the petitioner, in spite of assurance given by the respondent, the goods have not been released till date. The petitioner requested the respondent authorities many times for release of the goods but they neither released the goods nor issued show -cause notice. Instead the respondent issued the impugned show -cause notice to the petitioner as to why the period prescribed under section 110(2) of the Act should not be further extended for six months. Hence the present petition by the petitioner.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments in TRF Ltd. v. CCE and Service Tax : [2013] 293 ELT 172 (Jharkhand), Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : [2007] 8 RC 97 : [2007] 207 ELT 168 (SC) and ORYX Fisheries P. Ltd. v. Union of India : [2011] 26 ELT 422 (SC) to urge that the issuance of show -cause notice can be challenged in writ proceedings and there is no absolute bar.
(3.) THIS court, in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [2012] (2) 166 PLR 345, considering the question of entertaining writ petition where alternate statutory remedy was available, had in paragraphs 6 and 7 observed as under: "6. The following are the broad principles when a writ petition can be entertained without insisting for adopting statutory remedies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.;